Advertisement

Advertisement

Oct 27, 2017

Oct 29, 2017

Featured Comment

There have been many of this type of “crossover” comic strips in recent years, and I’ve always wondered about the legal aspects. Are Lio and Peanuts features offered by the same syndicate? Would that get around copyright issues?

The technicalities are not always intuitive. For example, if a copyright or trademark holder ignores unauthorized use of their protected material, it can be legally regarded as “abandoning” the trademark or copyright. For example, if a children’s charity created a clown spokescharacter called Donald McRonald, people would probably be mad at McDonald’s if they sued the charity for copyright violation. But if McDonald’s simply ignored such usage, they’d put themselves in jeopardy of losing their legal ownership of their own spokesclown, Ronald McDonald.

Otherhandwise, if a cartoon wrongly implied immoral behavior to a well known public figure, the real person probably couldn’t successfully sue because there is first amendment protection against libel accusations if the representation can be regarded as satire or parody. I think this is considered as “fair use” legally. Think political cartoons.

I remember that Marvel and DC once decided to join forces to claim legal use of the term “superhero.” Since both had used it for decades, neither could deny it to the other, but together they hoped to prevent other publishers from using it. I believe the Archie branded “super” crimefighters were referred to as “ultra-heroes” to avoid legal issues. I know there were court challenges to the DC/Marvel arrangement but I don’t know where all that finally went.All of which brings me to today’s Lio. Was formal permission needed to use Linus? Or is this considered a parody/fair use matter? Or something else? My reason for wanting to know? Simple curiosity.